The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Lanolin]

Interesting fact:

I just found out that some people actually believe that Shakespeare wrote the KJ

very strange.

Since english language changes so much there ought to be a new Bible published every year. For 2024 it could say - At the start God created Space and Planet Earth.

The epistles could be updated to emails.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could be renamed Matt, Marcus, Lucas and Johnny.

I know young adults now read the Graphic Version complete with full colour illustrations and handlettered capital letter script in comic format, called the Epic Bible. They dont know any different, and in church, its all on powerpoints slides.

The words God speaks are in giant speech bubbles and the narration is in text boxes. A lot is skipped out, because the pictures tell the story but, it makes it easier to read, so, it doesnt really matter does it?

You could just have a Bible without any pictures but thats kinda boring right? Even though scribes i. the past centuries painstakingly illuminated manuscripts with colour and goldleaf paint and dedicated their entire lives to transcribing the Bible.

I am glad though, that chapter numbers are now in arabic numerals cos figuring out Roman numerals takes too much brainpower. Bibles published in the last century still had roman numerals and would drive me crazy trying to figure out what the letters meant in digits.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

Oh believe me I am by no means at my best I am in a very dark place a place of uncertanty my life may become much worse or if God intervenes it could be for the better I have never needed a miracle more than now

But I am here I am willing even at my worst to be honest I am worn weary I struggle to even do anything anymore not only physically but any aspect you can think I knew the cost I still stand by everything I said from the start but I have also never known this level of spiritual warfare

even the strongest of warriors have their limits and if no one is there to catch you when you fall to help you stand again then will always show how we ourselves are not enough no one wins a war by a single strong warrior but the streght of others the companions the bonds forged

I have no such bonds no companions to catch me so I am broken and defeated like I am now all I have is him
So if I speak of anything good it is not because I am ok but as I always say to him I am here I am willing use me.

Its always good to see your will to help friend, you've given some really good words to this thread,

we need you more than ever blain the spiritual forces of the enemy is worse than ever in the world,

This is for sure, to much is happening.

To much crime is going unchecked.

We are in tribulation friend but there is light for those who endure and fight,

We fight with our strength to be kind in theese dark times, and we ignore anything other than this kind nature.

Even in the face of the enemy where a kind word is not spoken, all we have to say well that's very kind of you say so.
Or I will take note thanks.

Or dont say anything at all

I've already ignored several posts to day but I may just go back and leave a blessing.

It might be a silent prayer as I don't need to say anything or write anything.

Just as I pray for you to be stronger than ever before and for God to give you the strength of Samson


You can see the fallen world here at cc more than ever to friend,

When you speak the words of the lord to some people here you can see how much there not over coming the spiritual forces of wickedness, they have a long way to go friend,

This is why need strong brothers like you who can endure friend.

But it's maybe better if you take part in threads where there is no such attempts to wage war on his kingdom as you need rebuilding, I sense friend.
There unkind words of the enemies hatred might be the words that push you over the edge or they might be the words that say well I'll just come back another time stronger than ever.

And spur my brothers on



This place I've noticed lately has become full of false prophets friend
Spreading the seed of doubt and baring false testimony of people's character.

Don't let them win by having them make you believe your at fault, even tho tho they be smart or intelligent,

Real intelligence comes from wisdom and insight from Him,

But it comes not once but every minutes every day as we seek his nature his wisdom his words friend.

It can't be a quick little bit of insight now in theese times.

we must seek like never before friend

and we will crush the forces of wickedness friend,

with all his avenging angels

and all his authority

I will become the brother

who will live in hostility with brothers

for you friend I will be like Ishmeal for you.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

In other words @Blain I will become a wild donkey of a man for you 😊.

But not so wild that my swords will not be crossed, as they will be crossed for you friend. But not crossed for others.. nope they will get lash after lash, with a no surrender policy in place 😊

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

But remember @Blain the lash after lash will be the sword of truth that leaves an everlasting truth. Silence is Golden friend.

 

[presidente]

Sorry you lost me there.

Not sure what you trying to argue

'In the beginning it was not so' Jesus meaning, in the beginning, peoples hearts were not hard. This was BEFORE Moses time, like right at the beginning of creation. He was meaning about the nature of human love, man and woman want to be together.

Jesus was commenting on the practice of giving a certificate of divorce. He had already pointed out that two shall be one flesh from Genesis.

 

[NightTwister]

Please. You must correct the non-KJV Only people in this thread in such a manner. It is only fair. Thank you.

What are homonyms, homophones, and homographs?
Homonym can be troublesome because it may refer to three distinct classes of words. Homonyms may be words with identical pronunciations but different spellings and meanings, such as to, too, and two. Or they may be words with both identical pronunciations and identical spellings but different meanings, such as quail (the bird) and quail (to cringe). Finally, they may be words that are spelled alike but are different in pronunciation and meaning, such as the bow of a ship and bow that shoots arrows. The first and second types are sometimes called homophones, and the second and third types are sometimes called homographs—which makes naming the second type a bit confusing.

You are the one needing correction, not that you'll take it.

 

[presidente]

This is what is concerning. First, some believers (like myself) hold to the view that when the Bible (KJB) says His Word is perfect and it was preserved, then that means it has no errors in it because that is what the Bible says about itself. It is a faith issue. We are trusting God that the Bible has no errors. So you would be attacking our faith in believing what the Bible says about itself.

Uh-oh, those verses are in the NIV, too, and the RSV, and the NASB. So if you read those, then will you have to believe those versions are inspired.

The KJV is a __translation of__ the Bible. The manuscript traditions it was translated from did not cease to exist when it was translated.

I heard a KJV-onlyist to the objection of, "What about people who don't speak English?" It was 'The KJV has been translated into numerous languages.' Sounds like a dumb answer to me, but if the KJV is translated into another language, then does the KJV cease to be inspired and the real Bible become the translation into that other language?

Attacking faith? Believing a lie is not commendable. Paul wrote of those who would be sent a strong delusion to believe a lie. Those people believe a lie... but is their faith commendable.

I'm not saying KJV-onlyism is the end-times delusion being spoken of in II Thessalonians. But just pointing out that believing something doesn't make it true or the faith in what is false to be commendable. And the issue here regarding falsehood is the doctrine, not taught by the prophets, the Lord Jesus, or the apostles in scripture that the KJV is an inspired translation.

 

[John146]

God was not speaking Elizabethan English...

The KJV was not written in Elizabethan English. Those claims simply are not true. It was written in a kind of English especially for the Bible itself that would give us the best possible representation of Holy Scripture in the English language. Many of the words and phrases were not in use in 1611, but the writers wanted to be exact when it came to the English language.

 

[presidente]

Note, I am saying this in context of the Bible. Presidente believes the word “book” believes it can only mean scroll in light of the Bible. I don’t believe this is the case in Isaiah 34:16 because of the verses in Revelation that are paralleled in that chapter and because it is addressed to the Gentile nations.

Codices were rare. I hadn't heard or read of them being used for scriptures at that time. By that I mean a book bound on one side. I have read they were used for scripture in 100 AD.

The verse you refer to says this,
16 Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

It doesn't say all scripture would be bound in one book. And it certainly doesn't say anything about one translation in the English language being inspired.

 

[presidente]

When you get a chance after the holidays. Watch the video.

God’s Word says His words are in a book (singular) (See: Deuteronomy 17:18, Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 34:16, Jeremiah 30:2, Job 19:23-24, Luke 4:20, Hebrews 10:7).

This is an example of KJV interpretive foolishness. Not a single verse you cite makes the point you make. For some of things, I'm shaking my head at the foolishness of the assertion. Jeremiah was told to write the words he had received in a book. What book is that? The whole Bible? Um, look in your Bible, in the book that quote is from. It's from the Book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah didn't write Genesis or the Psalms of David. Your use of scripture makes no sense at all. This type of argument is why us non-KJV typically folks think KJV-onlyism is just plain dumb, even if a lot of non-KJV-only folks don't come out and say it that way. I'm reading the verses and SMH, not at the verses but at your assertions.

Even if you are treating the word 'book' as inspired, even a KJV-onlyist can know they had scrolls back then.

I'll put the actual verses in quotes:

Deuteronomy 17:18,
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:


Joshua 1:8
This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

Isaiah 34:16
Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Jeremiah 30:2
Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.

Job 19:23-24
23 Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!

Luke 4:20
And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

Hebrews 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

I don't suppose interpretations really have to make sense. KJV-onlyism relies on the idea that if you don't accept KJV-onlyism, you are in unbelief, so therefore you accept the ridiculous KJV-onlyist arguments, so you aren't in unbelief. I'd imagine that cognitive dissonance can get pretty extreme for folks who aren't cut out for this sort of thing.

Yeah. What you believe is silly to me. I actually think your belief runs contrary to sound logic, and the Bible. Proponents of Textual Criticism or those who advocate for relying solely on the original texts (which do not exist) cannot identify any single Bible as the unequivocal, inerrant, and inspired word of God, as they don't believe such a book exists. They believe in a “phantom Bible” or a Bible that only exists in their own mind. While Textual Critics engage in rigorous scholarship, and analysis, their pursuit in reconstructing the nonexistent original manuscripts of the Bible represents more of a philosophical pursuit rather than a tangible reality, giving rise to the paradox of competing "phantom Bibles" that only exist in the minds of these scholars, each unique and shaped by their own distinct perspectives that differ from one another.

I can't think of a single post I have made that is 'Textual Criticism.' I mentioned an alternate reading of Amos, but that is based on Masoretes adding vowels as an aid to pronounce Biblical texts, and vowel pointing a passage in Amos differently from the way James interpreted it in Acts 2. That isn't an issue of the actual Hebrew text changing, since the vowel points weren't there in Biblical times.

Do you think Christians in Biblical times did not have access to God's word, when we read in the Bible that Paul preached it to various groups of Christians? They heard the word of God without holding a KJV in their hands or hearing it read. And what about Christians between the completion of the book of Revelation and the writing of the KJV, did they have a 'phantom Bible?

Be that as it may, do you believe the KJV translators translated from a 'phantom Bible'? If so, you have a problem. Are you saying the Textus Receptus and other texts the KJV was translated from ceased to exist in 1611? Why would a translation of the texts used-- the KJV-- become a real Bible, but the manuscripts used to translate it become a 'phantom Bible'?

 

[presidente]

The KJV was not written in Elizabethan English. Those claims simply are not true. It was written in a kind of English especially for the Bible itself that would give us the best possible representation of Holy Scripture in the English language. Many of the words and phrases were not in use in 1611, but the writers wanted to be exact when it came to the English language.

Jacobite English?

 

[presidente]

One time in the Bible we see the questioning of God’s Words is with the serpent. The serpent got Eve to question God’s words. “Yea, hath God said….?” So if questioning the Bible like Textual Critics do is considered normal and good to try and find His perfect words someday (that you will never have), then why don’t we see good examples of this? But we don’t. What we have is the serpent as an example of questioning God’s words. So questioning God’s words is bad according to the Bible. Yet, this is at the very heart of Textual Criticism. One is constantly questioning and criticizing the text. How on Earth you can just put your head in the sand on this point is beyond me.

So is this an argument against the KJV, which relied on a manuscript developed through Erasmus Textual Criticsm to arrive at the Textus Receptus. Are you changing your stance?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

What are homonyms, homophones, and homographs?
Homonyms can be troublesome because they may refer to three distinct classes of words. Homonyms may be words with identical pronunciations but different spellings and meanings, such as to, too, and two. Or they may be words with both identical pronunciations and identical spellings but different meanings, such as quail (the bird) and quail (to cringe). Finally, they may be words that are spelled alike but are different in pronunciation and meaning, such as the bow of a ship and the bow that shoots arrows. The first and second types are sometimes called homophones, and the second and third types are sometimes called homographs—which makes naming the second type a bit confusing.

Very informative. Well said. Thank you. I really do appreciate that.

You are the one needing correction, not that you'll take it.

Yeah, while I may disagree with your negativity and unfriendliness at times, I took the correction. I am actually copying and pasting what you wrote into my Google notes right now for future use. I may research this topic more later. I don’t know everything in the universe. But thanks. I really appreciate the tip. I graduated in the early 1990s in a small-town country school (Mostly farmers). Although I loved most of the people there, their education was not always advanced.

Note: With Grammarly that I just installed, I do see three grammar errors in your paragraph. But it's okay. It happens to me every time I write, too. We are not perfect.

May the love of Christ and His grace be your focus of the day.

May God bless you and your family in the Lord.

 

[Niki7]

very strange.

Since english language changes so much there ought to be a new Bible published every year. For 2024 it could say - At the start God created Space and Planet Earth.

The epistles could be updated to emails.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could be renamed Matt, Marcus, Lucas and Johnny.

I know young adults now read the Graphic Version complete with full colour illustrations and handlettered capital letter script in comic format, called the Epic Bible. They dont know any different, and in church, its all on powerpoints slides.

The words God speaks are in giant speech bubbles and the narration is in text boxes. A lot is skipped out, because the pictures tell the story but, it makes it easier to read, so, it doesnt really matter does it?

You could just have a Bible without any pictures but thats kinda boring right? Even though scribes i. the past centuries painstakingly illuminated manuscripts with colour and goldleaf paint and dedicated their entire lives to transcribing the Bible.

I am glad though, that chapter numbers are now in arabic numerals cos figuring out Roman numerals takes too much brainpower. Bibles published in the last century still had roman numerals and would drive me crazy trying to figure out what the letters meant in digits.

The internet is both a strange and wonderful place.

 

[HeIsHere]

In high school, many people are forced to read Shakespeare and don’t even understand the language, let alone the poetry. Such people rarely read a word of poetry later in life. Why, with something as important as their eternal destiny on the line, would you risk the possibility they won’t understand the book you give them?

For such people, the KJV doesn’t need to be “dumbed down”; it needs to be set aside.

I wonder how many is many?

Remember when teachers knew how to teach Shakespeare and literature and students were explicitly taught the language and how the rhyme worked and remember how they grew brain cells and became smarter not dumber.

Can you tell me what the IQ would be for those who need it to be set aside?

 

[Niki7]

A lot of people read Shakespeare too.
I have yet to find as many whine and complain about it being too hard to read.
There are still plays performed using the early scripts.
The issue isn't that the KJV needs to be dumbed down for those who are nearly illiterate. I think it reasonable if they simply try to learn how to read and expand their vocabulary.

Thanks. I had my full of that in High School. Good thing for Coles notes

I grew up with the KJ in tow but I certainly do not think it 'inspired' or the only version worthy of the term Holy Bible.

 

[Niki7]

The KJV was not written in Elizabethan English. Those claims simply are not true. It was written in a kind of English especially for the Bible itself that would give us the best possible representation of Holy Scripture in the English language. Many of the words and phrases were not in use in 1611, but the writers wanted to be exact when it came to the English language.

oh boy. information light here. it is somewhat more complicated than that and you obviously looked it up and did not read the info in its entirety, but just claimed what you thought would place you in 'the know'.

hurray for you

 

[Niki7]

A little more info on the 'style' of the English in the KJ

As @Laurel says, the underlying English dialect is Early Modern English; but you need to realize as well that the Authorized Version is a translation which seeks to reflect both the various styles employed in the Hebrew and Greek originals and a literary tradition of Biblical translation stretching back two hundred years in English (and beyond that to the 4th-century Latin Vulgate). The 'Biblical' style was already established and familiar to its readers when the AV was first published: both the AV and its Catholic competitor the Douai-Rheims translation were stylistically based on the earlier work of Tyndale (1525), which hearkens back to Wycliffe's Middle English translations.

The theological authority of the AV carried over to its style, which dominated religious translation and expression in English for the next three centuries. The style was followed not only by translators of the Hebrew-Greek scriptures and works from other religious traditions such as the Quran and the Upanishads, but also by new works claiming religious authority, such as Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon and Aleister Crowley's Thelemist texts.

The Biblical style is so widespread that it's immediately recognized by virtually all English speakers, and is thus eminently suited to parody. sourced from (people who actually know and do not have the prejudice evident in this particular thread)

 

[Magenta]

The KJV was not written in Elizabethan English. Those claims simply are not true. It was written in a kind of English especially for the Bible itself that would give us the best possible representation of Holy Scripture in the English language. Many of the words and phrases were not in use in 1611, but the writers wanted to be exact when it came to the English language.

Way to avoid the point. So whatever you want to call this made- up language, it is still not the language God spoke.

 

[Niki7]

For those who care and prefer the truth...simple and objective:

HERE YA GO